As a hunter who primarily…

As a hunter who primarily targets waterfowl, I do not agree with the proposed action concerning the addition of Double-Crested Cormorants as a game species, via its exception from the Migratory Bird Act.

I feel this amendment to the act is not justified for the following reasons:

1) While I to often see cormorants while hunting, I have never felt they have impeded my hunt.
2) Permission to let meat spoil is against everything that hunting represents - at least to me, but also many others I am sure.
3) The daily bag and possession limits, combined with the long seasons present a situation which could lead to rapid declines.
4) The potential declines, may not only be rapid, but will be very difficult to monitor effectively until it is too late.
5) The province has spent many years, funds and efforts on restoring and managing the cormorant population. It would be foolish to make an amendment could undo years of conservation and wildlife management activities.
6) While culls have played various roles in wildlife management in the past, few examples of native species culls are looked upon favorably in hindsight. Notably, the culling of elk from Ontario, where the justification was centered around the protection of other species. Only after the cull had occurred, did the province realize that the source of the problem was not elk. Many millions have been spent on the reintroduction of elk in Ontario.
7) The extended season of the cormorant hunt would overlap with breeding periods of the species. Hunting species which are actively tending to eggs or young is unethical. Hunting seasons are specifically built around avoiding this portion of their target's life history.

To summarize, while I understand the public desire from some hunters to have greater management of cormorant populations, especially around the great lakes. However, I do not think an open season, especially one so broad, long and with such an extensive bag limit is justified. I, as a hunter, disagree with the Ministry's proposed plan, and sincerely hope that modifications to the proposed amendment will be considered. The biggest issue, in my view, is the lack of regulation and monitoring, both of which cannot be addressed with the proposal as is. It is important to understand the implications and likely outcomes associated with any wildlife management strategy. The amendment as presented does not appear to be based on scientific facts, cogent reasoning, and therefore should not proceed.

Thank you